On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:55:54 -0400 David Zeuthen <da...@fubar.dk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 16:43 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > So, would a "is-laptop" property make more sense? > > No, no, no. You are conflating policy with the form-factor here. You > are trying to be "helpful" but not realizing it's having the opposite > effect. That's what I've been trying to say all along. > > To repeat myself: it is _fundamentally_ wrong to expose such > properties because it leads to bad software. Software that tries to > be "clever" about what behavior should be the default by making > decisions for the poor user. Software that acts and feels > unpredictable. > > The way you need to design your software is > > a) use standard configuration systems like e.g. GConf GConf is not "standard" at all. If the goal is desktop-neutrality (which it should be, IMHO), then GConf should be out of the equation completely. If it's optional, that's fine, but *requiring* it is just wrong IMO. -RW
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devkit-devel mailing list devkit-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/devkit-devel
